Stache Products LLC v. VAPE Plus Distribution Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stache Products, LLC (Maryland)
  • Defendant: Vape Plus Distribution Corp. dba G & A Distribution (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-07625, E.D.N.Y., 10/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SUPREB RIG IN ONE" dab rig products infringe three utility patents and one design patent related to integrated, all-in-one vaporization devices.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to portable vaporization devices ("dab rigs") that combine a water pipe, a heatable surface for concentrates, and a torch holder into a single, self-contained unit.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent Nos. 11,497,244 and 11,497,252 are continuations of U.S. Patent No. 10,786,006, indicating a shared technical specification and priority date, which may be relevant for claim construction and validity analyses.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,786,006 - "Vaporization Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,786,006, "Vaporization Device," issued September 29, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional vaporization rigs as being "large, burdensome, hard to transport, indiscreet, and hard to use with one hand," which typically requires a user to hold the rig separately from a heating torch (’006 Patent, col. 1:38-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an integrated vaporization apparatus comprising a "support structure" (a body or base) that includes a "receptacle" on its top surface to hold a vaporization rig and a "hole" in its front end to hold a heating element, such as a torch. This configuration is designed to align the heating element's flame or heat source with the heatable portion of the rig (the "nail"), enabling stable, one-handed operation (’006 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-65; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This integrated design sought to improve the portability, safety, and convenience of using vaporization rigs by consolidating the separate components into a single, self-contained unit (’006 Patent, col. 4:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A support structure comprising a top, bottom, front end, and back end, with a receptacle on top and a hole in the front.
  • A heating element insertable into the hole.
  • A vaporization rig securable in the receptacle, which itself includes a main body, a nail with a receptacle for an inhalable substance, and a mouthpiece.
  • The structure is configured to align the heatable portion of the nail with the heat-generating portion of the heating element.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in the patent family (Compl. ¶1).

U.S. Patent No. 11,497,244 - "Vaporization Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,497,244, "Vaporization Device," issued November 15, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same issues of inconvenience and difficulty of use associated with traditional, multi-component vaporization rigs (’244 Patent, col. 1:22-44).
• The Patented Solution: As a continuation of the '006 patent, this invention also describes an integrated apparatus. However, it claims a different configuration: a support structure with a "first receptacle" for securing the vaporization rig and a "second receptacle" for holding the heating element. This shifts from the "hole" terminology of the '006 patent, potentially capturing different structural arrangements for holding the torch or other heating element (’244 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:15-20).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides an alternative embodiment for an all-in-one vaporization device, potentially broadening the protected scope of the integrated concept.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A support structure with a top and bottom, defining a first receptacle and a second receptacle.
  • A heating element insertable into the second receptacle.
  • A vaporization rig securable in the first receptacle.
  • A specific spatial relationship where the first receptacle frictionally engages the rig and the second receptacle is spaced to longitudinally align the heatable portion of the rig with the heating element.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶1).

U.S. Patent No. 11,497,252 - "Vaporization Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,497,252, "Vaporization Device," issued November 15, 2022.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a vaporization apparatus where the heating element is removably supported within a "laterally-extending cavity" originating from an opening in the front or back of the device's body. A separate "second receptacle" for the vaporization rig is defined on the top surface, located entirely above the heating element cavity, to create a compact, integrated unit (’252 Patent, col. 15:48-67).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶42); the patent includes independent claims 1 and 11.
• Accused Features: The integrated structure of the accused kit, which features a base with an internal or side-mounted torch holder and a top-mounted support for the glass rig (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

U.S. Design Patent No. D872,933 S - "Vaporization rig"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D872,933 S, "Vaporization rig," issued January 14, 2020.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental, non-functional design for a "vaporization rig," which appears to be the support structure. The design is characterized by a generally rectangular body with rounded vertical corners, a flat top and bottom, a large circular opening on the front face, and a smaller circular opening on the top surface (’933 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
• Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design shown in the figures.
• Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of the accused product's base component (Compl. p. 6).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as "dab rig products," including but not limited to the "SUPREB RIG IN ONE KIT" (Compl. ¶¶16, 26).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused product is alleged to be an "all-in-one rig device that flash heats cannabinoid concentrates to the point of vaporization, utilizing a torch" (Compl. ¶17). An image provided in the complaint shows a device with a base unit that supports a glass water pipe component (rig) and appears to house a torch mechanism, with the torch nozzle situated below the heatable surface of the rig (Compl. p. 6, FIG. at ¶16). The complaint alleges that these products are imported, distributed, and sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶16). The image shows the accused product, a light blue dab rig base with "Cookies" branding, which supports a glass rig and has a torch inserted into its front. (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint pleads infringement in a conclusory manner without detailed element-by-element analysis. The following charts map the complaint's general allegations and visual evidence to the elements of the lead patents' independent claims.

'006 Patent Infringement Allegations

'244 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue will be claim construction. For the '006 patent, the dispute may center on whether the accused product’s torch holder constitutes a "hole formed in the front end." For the '244 patent, a question is whether that same feature constitutes a "second receptacle." The prosecution history of these related patents may reveal express distinctions between these terms.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will require evidence of the functional alignment claimed in the patents. The complaint's allegation that the products "operate identically" (Compl. ¶17) is conclusory and will need to be substantiated with technical evidence or testing that demonstrates the specific alignment between the heat generating and heatable portions.
  • Design Patent Question: The infringement test for the '933 patent will be whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product's design to be substantially the same as the patented design. This will involve a direct visual comparison of the "SUPREB RIG IN ONE" base (Compl. p. 6) with the drawings in the '933 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "receptacle" (asserted in '006, '244, and '252 patents)

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the patents use it differently. The '006 patent claims "a receptacle" on top and a "hole" in front. The '244 patent claims a "first receptacle" and a "second receptacle." Whether the opening for the torch is a "hole" (as in '006) or a "receptacle" (as in '244) will be a central point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could determine whether one patent is infringed but not another.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification generally describes a receptacle as a feature "sized to support the vaporization rig" or "sized to receive a main body" of a component, suggesting a general-purpose holder (’006 Patent, col. 2:6-9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the '006 patent consistently distinguishes between the "receptacle" on the top surface and the "hole" in the front end, implying they are structurally distinct terms (’006 Patent, col. 11:15-20). A defendant could argue this creates a narrower definition for "receptacle" that does not read on the torch holder.

• The Term: "aligns" (asserted in '006, '244, and '252 patents)

• Context and Importance: This functional term is at the heart of the invention's utility. The required degree of precision for the "alignment" of the heating and heatable portions will be a key factor in the infringement analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the goal is to allow a torch "to direct a flame onto a bottom of the heatable portion," suggesting any configuration achieving this functional result would suffice (’006 Patent, col. 2:44-46).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides detailed embodiments with specific geometric relationships, such as "axis A1 is collinear with axis A2," and describes predetermined distances (’006 Patent, col. 7:14-16). A defendant may argue that this language requires a more precise geometric alignment than its product possesses.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "had knowledge of the patents" at all relevant times of infringement (Compl. ¶18). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement and an award of enhanced damages, suggesting an allegation that the infringement was egregious (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ C, F).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "hole" and "receptacle" be interpreted interchangeably, or does the patents' own language and prosecution history create distinct meanings that are critical for infringement? The resolution will determine which, if any, of the asserted utility patents read on the accused product's structure.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: beyond visual similarity, what technical evidence will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused product achieves the specific "alignment" between the heating element and the heatable surface as functionally required by the patent claims?
• A central question for the design patent claim will be one of visual identity: from the perspective of an ordinary observer in the market for these products, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "SUPREB RIG IN ONE" base substantially the same as the design claimed in the '933 patent, or are the visual differences sufficient to avoid infringement?